Ranger 16 vs Ranger 30
How do the Ranger 16 and Ranger 30 compare? Below, their dimensions, displacement, sail area and the standard design ratios side by side, followed by a data-driven summary.
Ranger 16 | Ranger 16 | Ranger 30 | |
|---|---|---|
| Length overall | 16.7 ft5.08 m | 30.0 ft9.14 m |
| Waterline length | —— | 25.4 ft7.75 m |
| Beam | 6.0 ft1.83 m | 10.8 ft3.28 m |
| Draft | 3.0 ft0.90 m | 5.5 ft1.68 m |
| Displacement | 450 lb204 kg | 10,500 lb4,763 kg |
| Ballast | —— | 4,300 lb1,950 kg |
| Sail area | 154 ft²14.3 m² | 462 ft²42.9 m² |
| SA / Displacement | 41.96 | 15.42 |
| Displacement / Length | — | 285 |
| Comfort ratio | — | 25.6 |
| Capsize screening | 3.13 | 1.96 |
| Hull speed (kn) | — | 6.8 |
Ranger 16 vs Ranger 30: the short version
- The Ranger 30 is the larger boat at 30.0 ft9.14 m LOA versus 16.7 ft5.08 m for the Ranger 16.
- The Ranger 30 is heavier, displacing about 2233% more, which usually means a steadier but slower-to-accelerate hull.
- On sail area/displacement the Ranger 16 carries the more powerful rig (42.0 vs 15.4), favouring lighter-air performance.
- By the capsize screening formula the Ranger 30 rates better for offshore work (1.96 vs 3.13).
Ratios are guidelines computed from published specs; condition, layout and gear matter as much as the numbers.